- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:51:32 +0300
- To: <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> The basic idea of treating rdf:XMLLiteral as a datatype means > that there > are two different kinds of datatypes - I(rdf:XMLLiteral) and > all the other > datatypes. The two different kinds of datatypes work completely > differently, but there is no way of distinguishing between them. I agree with Peter here. > I think that the best way to go would be to remove rdf:XMLLiteral > entirely. It is a bastard amalgam of syntax and semantics > that provides > far greater pain than benefit. Another option, and one which I've suggested several times, is to revert the definition of XML literals to that defined by M&S, that there would be no rdf:XMLLiteral datatype, but that we would have three types of literal: the two original M&S types of literal, plain and XML, for which the lang tag is significant, and the new type of literal, typed literals, for which the lang tag is not significant. D-interpretations only are relevant to typed literals. Not to either plain literals or XML literals. This way, we can give the special treatment we need to XML literals without it mucking up the semantics of typed literals. I would like to make this a formal proposal to both Peter and the WG. Patrick -- Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 01:51:40 UTC